Moser, Taylor M.
PD-0662-15
| Tex. App. | Jun 1, 2015Background
- One-car rollover around 2:30 a.m.; a backseat passenger (Jesus Martinez) died; three occupants were under 21 and had consumed alcohol earlier.
- Trooper Bacon arrived at the scene ~4:16 a.m., investigated, learned of the fatality and passenger statements; an open, partially full beer can was observed in the vehicle.
- Appellant Taylor Moser was at the hospital; Trooper Bacon interviewed him there ~5:40 a.m., advised statutory warnings ~5:47, and placed Moser under arrest ~5:57; Moser refused to give a blood specimen.
- Trooper Bacon ordered a nonconsensual, warrantless blood draw under Tex. Trans. Code § 724.012(b)(1)(A) (death-resulting provision).
- At a suppression hearing the trial court denied motions to suppress arrest and blood-test evidence; Moser pleaded guilty to intoxication manslaughter and was sentenced. The court of appeals reversed suppression of the blood evidence as a Fourth Amendment violation and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moser) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held (Court of Appeals) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation: whether McNeely challenge was preserved | Moser asserted Fourth Amendment attack on draw on appeal | State: Moser never raised McNeely-specific argument at suppression hearing or in motion with required specificity/time | Court of Appeals did not decide preservation; State asks CCA to hold claim not preserved |
| Validity of warrantless mandatory draw under § 724.012(b)(1)(A) | Statute cannot override Fourth Amendment; McNeely requires warrant absent exigency | State: statute authorizes draw; prior caselaw supports reasonableness; good-faith reliance | Court of Appeals: warrantless draw unreasonable under McNeely; suppression required |
| Applicability of exclusionary rule / remedy | Suppress unlawfully obtained blood results | State: officers relied on presumptively valid statute and binding caselaw—suppression not required | Court of Appeals applied exclusionary rule and suppressed blood-test evidence |
| Exigent circumstances (dissipation of alcohol / timing) | No sufficient contemporaneous exigency—Trooper arrived well after accident; delay undermines exigency claim | State: totality of circumstances (time since drinking, observed evidence, fatality, investigative delay) created exigency justifying warrantless draw | Court of Appeals did not address exigency; State asks CCA to consider or remand to analyze exigency |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) (natural dissipation of alcohol is a factor in exigency analysis; warrant generally required absent exigent circumstances)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (blood draw without warrant upheld where exigent circumstances and investigation required prompt action)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (probable cause requires more than bare suspicion; objective totality-of-circumstances test)
- Torres v. State, 182 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard of review for suppression hearings and probable-cause framework)
- Amador v. State, 275 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (probable-cause analysis under Texas law; courts consider totality of circumstances)